Department  of  the  Interior, 

Bureau  of  Education. 


MINUTES'/;.: 


OF  THE 


FOURTEENTH  CONFERENCE 

OF 

THE  NATIONAL  CONFERENCE  COMMITTEE  ON 
STANDARDS  OF  COLLEGES  AND  SECONDARY  SCHOOLS 

HELD   AT   NEW   YORK,    N.  Y. 

MARCH  10,   1921 


THE 

In  accordance  with  the  instructions  of  the  President,  Dean 
George  D.  Olds,  the  Secretary  called  a  meeting  of  the 
National  Conference  Committee  on  Standards  of  Colleges  and 
Secondary  Schools  for  10  A.  M.,  Thursday,  March  10,  1921, 
at  the  rooms  of  the  Carnegie  Foundation  for  the  Advancement 
"*  of  Teaching,  in  New  York  City. 

In  advance  of  the  meeting,  each  member  of  the  Committee 
received  a  note  concerning  the  matters  to  be  taken  up  at  the 
meeting,  in  accordance  with  the  recommendations  of  the  Exe- 
cutive Committee,  as  follows: 

I.  Additional  members  of  the  Conference  Committee. 

II.  A  request  of  the  American  Council  on  Education  that  this 

Committee  call  a  conference  of  various  standardizing 
organizations. 

III.  Report  of  the  committee  on  the  junior  college. 

IV.  Report  of  the  committee  on  honorary  degrees. 

V.  Report  on  recent  studies  in  college  entrance  requirements. 

VI.  Further  study  of  items  in  college  accounting. 

VII.  New  methods  in  examinations. 

VIII.  The  problem  of   increased  numbers  in  the   colleges,  and 

possible  solutions. 


.  :   ;;••:.-.••:;    :  A  .ATTENDANCE 

"  In*  accordance* 'with*  riie  call  of  the  Secretary,  the  Committee 
met  at  10  A.  M.,  Thursday,  March  10,  1921,  at  the  rooms  of 
the  Carnegie  Foundation  for  the  Advancement  of  Teaching. 
The  meeting  was  called  to  order  by  the  President,  Dean 
George  D.  Olds.  The  Secretary  reported  that  the  following 
constituted  the  membership  of  the  Committee,  representing 
the  organizations  indicated: 

President  Marion  L.  Burton,  University  of  Michigan,  repre- 
senting the  National  Association  of  State  Universities. 

Dean  George  D.  Olds,  Amherst  College,  representing  the 
New  England  Association  of  Colleges  and  Secondary 
Schools. 

President  Frederick  C.  Ferry,  Hamilton  College,  represent- 
ing the  Association  of  Colleges  and  Preparatory 
Schools  of  the  Middle  States  and  Maryland. 

President  William  W.  Guth,  Goucher  College,  representing 
the  Association  of  Colleges  and  Secondary  Schools  of 
the  Southern  States. 

Headmaster  Wilson  Farrand,  Newark  Academy,  represent- 
ing the  College  Entrance  Examination  Board. 

Dean  Frank  W.  Nicolson,  Wesleyan  University,  represent- 
ing the  New  England  College  Entrance  Certificate 
Board. 

Dr.  Robert  L.  Kelly,  representing  the  Association  of 
American  Colleges. 

Professor  Frederick  B.  Robinson,  College  of  the  City  of 
New  York,  representing  the  Association  of  Urban 
Universities. 

President  Henry  S.  Pritchett,  Carnegie  Foundation  for  the 
Advancement  of  Teaching;  and  Secretary  Clyde  Furst, 
Carnegie  Foundation  for  the  Advancement  of  Teaching. 

Honorable  Philander  P.  Claxton,  United  States  Commis- 
sioner of  Education. 

President  Pritchett  and  President  Burton  were  unable  to  be 
present.  Dean  J.  R.  Effinger,  of  the  University  of  Michigan, 
represented  the  National  Association  of  State  Universities. 


Dr.  George  F.  Zook  was  in  attendance  as  a  representative  of 
Commissioner  Claxton.  Dr.  Samuel  P.  Capen,  Director  of 
the  American  Council  on  Education,  was  also  present. 

THE  CONFERENCE 

The  Chairman  stated  that  the  minutes  of  the  Conference  of 
March  23,  1920,  had  been  printed  and  circulated,  and  that 
accordingly  the  reading  of  them  would  be  omitted. 

The  report  of  the  Treasurer,  audited  by  Dr.  Zook,  was  ac- 
cepted and  adopted,  showing  a  balance  on  hand  of  $138.77. 

The  following  topics  were  considered  and  action  taken  as 
indicated. 

I.  ADDITIONAL  MEMBERS  OF  THE  CONFERENCE  COMMITTEE. 

Professor  Robinson,  Dr.  Zook,  and  Dr.  Kelly  were  appointed 
a  committee  to  consider  the  matter  of  additions  to  the  member- 
ship of  the  Committee.  They  reported  that  no  action  be 
taken  at  present,  and  the  report  was  accepted  and  adopted. 

II.  PROPOSED   CONFERENCE   OF  STANDARDIZING  ORGANI- 

ZATIONS. 

Dr.  Capen  presented  a  resolution  adopted  by  the  Executive 
Committee  of  the  American  Council  on  Education  December 
9,  1920,  as  follows: 

"On  motion  it  was  voted  to  request  the  National  Conference 
Committee  on  Standards  of  Colleges  and  Secondary  Schools  to 
arrange  a  joint  conference  of  the  representatives  of  the  principal 
standardizing  agencies  with  a  view  to  bringing  about  uniformity  of 
definition  of  acceptable  collegiate  standards  and  of  accrediting 
procedure.  ',' 

It  was  voted  that  this  Committee  call  a  conference  of  vari- 
ous standardizing  agencies,  associations,  and  institutions  for 
the  purpose  of  discussing  the  whole  matter  of  formulating  and 
administering  collegiate  standards,  including  the  procedure  of 
accrediting,  and  that  we  accept  the  offer  of  the  American 
Council  on  Education  to  aid  in  bringing  about  such  a  confer- 
ence. 

The  Chairman  was  requested  to  appoint  a  committee  with 
power  to  arrange  the  preliminaries  of  the  proposed  conference, 
and  to  issue  a  call  for  it.  He  appointed  Dean  Nicolson  and 
Dr.  Zook. 


III.     THE  JUNIOR  COLLEGE. 

The  Committee  voted  to  accept  and  adopt  the  following 
report,  presented  by  the  committee  consisting  of  Dr.  Farrand, 
President  Burton,  and  President  Guth. 

The  Junior  College  is  an  institution  covering  the  first  two  years 
of  a  standard  college  course,  based  upon  the  completion  of  four 
years  of  high  school  work.  It  may  be  a  division  of  a  large  uni- 
versity offering  a  full  college  course  but  for  administrative  reasons 
dividing  that  course  into  two  separate  units  each  covering  two 
years  of  work;  it  may  be  a  separate  institution,  either  rural  or 
urban,  under  private  or  public  control,  established  primarily  either 
to  meet  local  needs  for  post-high-school  work,  whether  vocational 
or  cultural,  or  to  allow  students  to  take  the  early  years  of  their 
college  course  near  their  homes  or  in  a  comparatively  small  and 
closely  supervised  environment;  it  may  be  a  graduate  annex  to  a 
local  high  school  organized  primarily  to  gratify  local  pride  or  to 
aggrandize  the  local  school  system. 

There  are  over  a  hundred  such  institutions  in  the  country  at 
present,  and  there  is  a  marked  tendency  to  increase  the  number. 
The  institution  has  had  its  greatest  development  in  the  West  and 
South,  but  it  exists  in  all  parts  of  the  country,  and  the  movement 
is  general  rather  than  local  or  regional. 

In  many  cases  the  Junior  College  meets  a  genuine  need.  It 
serves  in  a  measure  to  relieve  the  enormous  pressure  of  students  on 
many  of  our  universities,  and  by  relieving  ,that  pressure  helps  to 
solve  the  troublesome  problem  of  the  assimilation  of  the  freshman. 
It  lightens  the  financial  burden  for  many  students  by  allowing 
them  to  take  the  first  half  of  their  college  course  at  less  expense 
than  in  a  distant  institution.  For  many  it  affords  the  opportunity 
at  home  and  at  small  cost  to  pursue  vocational  or  pre-professional 
studies  that  otherwise  they  would  be  unable  to  afford. 

Since  it  thus  meets  definite  needs,  it  is  evidently  here  to  stay, 
and  the  problem  is  not  whether  we  shall  have  junior  colleges,  but 
how  far  they  shall  be  encouraged,  what  standards  shall  be  insisted 
on,  and  how  far  work  done  in  them  shall  be  accredited  by  standard 
colleges,  by  professional  schools,  and  by  universities. 

It  may  be  set  down  as  a  safe  working  principle  that  junior  col- 
leges should  be  encouraged  in  so  far  as  they  meet  genuine,  legiti- 
mate needs,  and  that  their  work  should  be  accepted  and  accredited 
in  so  far  as  it  conforms  to  the  standards  maintained  by  colleges 
and  universities  of  recognized  standing.  This  means  that  the  insti- 
tution must  possess  at  least  the  minimum  collegiate  equipment, 
that  the  teachers  must  be  of  collegiate  calibre,  men  and  women  of 
scholarly  attainment,  that  the  work  must  be  done  under  college 
conditions,  and  that  the  atmosphere  must  be  distinctly  collegiate 
rather  than  secondary  in  character.  In  other  words  the  work  done 
in  junior  colleges  must  be  recognized  at  its  face  value  just  as  far  as, 


and  no  farther  than,  it  conforms  to  the  standards  of  our  recognized 
institutions. 

The  Junior  College  as  a  division  of  a  large  university  may  be  an 
administrative  device  of  great  value,  but  the  institution  in  this  form 
is  something  with  which  we  are  not  particularly  concerned  at 
present. 

The  rural  Junior  College  may  serve  a  very  useful  purpose,  and  it 
would  undoubtedly  be  for  the  best  interests  of  this  country  if  many 
of  the  small  institutions,  with  weak  resources,  which  are  vainly 
struggling  to  maintain  themselves  as  second  and  third  rate  colleges 
would  frankly  recognize  the  situation,  give  up  the  struggle,  limit 
their  field,  and  make  themselves  into  first-rate  junior  colleges, 
sending  their  students  on  to  earn  their  degrees  in  standard  insti- 
tutions. 

Some  of  our  cities  maintain  strong  and  well-equipped  municipal 
colleges  and  even  universities,  and  their  is  no  reason  why,  if  a 
local  need  exists,  a  larger  number  should  not  maintain  junior  col- 
leges. It  must  be  emphatically  asserted,  however,  that  if  such  an 
institution  is  to  claim  collegiate  standing  and  collegiate  recognition, 
it  must  maintain  collegiate  standards.  It  must  ordinarily  be  a 
separate  institution,  with  its  own  building,  its  own  president,  and 
its  own  faculty.  It  must  possess  adequate  library  and  laboratory 
facilities  for  work  of  college  grade.  Its  faculty  must  have  higher 
scholarly  attainments  than  the  minimum  necessary  for  successful 
high  school  work,  and  a  reasonable  proportion  of  the  staff  should 
have  had  experience  in  college  teaching.  The  number  of  teaching 
hours  required  of  them  must  be  smaller  than  are  ordinarily  called 
for  in  high  schools,  in  order  that  they  may  have  opportunity  for 
proper  study  and  preparation.  The  method  of  instruction  should 
be  collegiate  rather  than  secondary,  and  the  atmosphere  should  be 
the  same. 

The  extension  of  a  high-school  course  by  the  addition  of  one  or 
two  years  of  more  advanced  work  may  meet  a  genuine  local  need, 
but  such  an  annex  to  a  high  school  is  not  necessarily  worthy  of 
collegiate  standing.  In  general  it  may  be  said  that  such  an  insti- 
tution, with  the  high-school  principal  becoming  the  president  of 
the  college,  with  certain  of  the  high-school  teachers  taking  over 
the  work  of  instruction,  and  carrying  it  on  with  the  high-school 
facilities,  does  not  deserve  to  be  called  a  college,  and  should  not  be 
recognized  as  such. 

IV.     DEGREES,  HONORARY  AND  IN  COURSE. 

The  Committee  voted  to  accept  and  adopt,  with  certain 
modifications,  the  report  of  the  special  committee  on  the  sub- 
ject, consisting  of  President  Ferry,  Dr.  Furst,  and  Professor 
Robinson.  The  committee  was  continued  for  another  year, 
and  was  requested  to  prepare  a  statement  of  the  standard  of 


6 

awards    of    the    several    honorary   degrees.       The    report  as 
adopted  is  as  follows: 

"  Academical  Degrees  were  originally  instituted  for  this  purpose, 
That  men  eminent  for  Knowledge,  Wisdom,  and  Virtue,  who  have 
highly  merited  of  the  Republic  of  Letters  and  of  the  Common- 
wealth, should  be  rewarded  with  the  Honors  of  these  Laurels." 
(From  the  diploma  of  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Laws,  granted  by 
Harvard  University  to  George  Washington,  on  April  3,  1776.) 

' '  The  practice  (of  conferring  honorary  degrees)  appears  on  the 
whole  to  contribute  to  the  sum  of  human  happiness." 

PRESIDENT  LOWEST,. 

1.  Degrees   in  course  should   be   awarded   only   when    the   full 
catalogue  requirements,  or  clearly  demonstrable  equivalents,  have 
been  met. 

2.  The  same  work,  in  whole  or  in  part,  should  never  be  counted 
toward  two  degrees  in  liberal  arts. 

3.  Nunc pro  tune  degrees  are  generally  undesirable,  and  should 
be  very  rarely  conferred. 

4.  The  number  of  recipients  of  honorary  degrees  in  any  insti- 
tution should  in  each  year  be  strictly  limited.     The   ratio  of  the 
number  of  honorary  degrees  to  the  number  of  degrees  in  course 
conferred  by  any  institution  should  be  very  small. 

5.  Honorary  degrees  should  be  awarded  for  merit  only,  never 
solely  in  response  to  persistent  pressure  from  any  outside  quarter. 

6.  Intellectual  or   scholarly   ability,  as   well   as    character   and 
service,  should   be   considered   an   indispensable   qualification    for 
honorary  degrees. 

7.  No  honorary  degree  should  ever  be  awarded  without  thorough 
investigation,  consideration,    and   formal   recommendation    by   an 
appropriate  committee.     Recommendations  by  the  faculty  and  sug- 
gestions by  its  members  of  candidates  for  honorary  degrees  should 
receive  particular  consideration. 

8.  Honorary  degrees  should  be  granted  only  by  approximately 
unanimous  votes,  say  a  majority  of  four-fifths,  of  the  determining 
body. 

9.  The   reasons  for  the  award  of   honorary   degrees   should   be 
recorded  in  every  instance,  and   be  deemed  proper  matter  for  an- 
nouncement. 

10.  Honorary  degrees  should  not  be  conferred  on  any  member 
of  the  faculty  or  trustees  while  continuing  in  the  service  of  the 
institution  bestowing  the  degrees,  except  in  cases  of  long  service 
extending  to  advanced  age. 


11.  Honorary  degrees  should  be  granted  with  exceptional  care 
by  state-supported  and  city-supported  institutions. 

12.  It  is  desirable  that  degrees  which  are  ordinarily  conferred 
in  course  should  not  be  given  as  honorary  degrees. 

V.     COLLEGE  ENTRANCE  REQUIREMENTS. 

Dr.  Furst  presented  the  following  facts  for  the  information 
of  the  Committee.     No  action  was  taken  upon  the  report. 

Certain  interesting  tendencies  are  indicated  by  a  study  of  the 
requirements  for  entrance  to  candidacy  for  the  bachelor's  degree 
in  liberal  arts,  as  these  requirements  were  in  1912  and  1920,  in  the 
one  hundred  and  twenty-five  universities  and  colleges  that  were 
approved  by  the  Association  of  American  Universities  in  1918. 

These  tendencies,  as  reported  to  the  Association  of  American 
Colleges  in  1921,  are  briefly: 

(1)  The  number  of  institutions  having  but  one  requirement  for 
the  various  bachelor's  degrees  in  liberal  arts  increased  from  70  to 
77,  that  is,  from  56  to  61  per  cent  of  the  entire  125. 

(2)  The  number  of  requirements  for  entrance  that   demand    15 
units  of  preparatory  work  increased  from  91  to  145,  that  is,  from 
nearly  one-half  to   more   than   three-fourths   of   the   total   of    189 
requirements. 

(3)  The  total  number  of  units  required  for  entrance  in  the  125 
institutions  increased  from  2786  or  2834,  that  is  13  per  cent. 

(4)  The  number  of  units  prescribed  as  to  subject  decreased  from 
2025.5  to  1268.5,  that  is  from  72  to  44  per  cent  of  the  whole  number, 
a  decrease  of  37  per  cent. 

(5)  The  number  of  units  left  entirely  free  as  to  subject  increased 
from  101  to  348.5,  that  is  from  3.6   to    12   per  cent   of   the   whole 
number. 

(6)  The  number  of  elective   units   increased   but  slightly,  from 
659.5  to  697.5,  that  is  from  23  to  24  per  cent  of  the  whole. 

(7)  A  comparatively  new  feature,  alternate  requirements,  that  is 
units  to  be  taken  in  either  Latin  or  Greek,  mathematics  or  chem- 
istry or  physics,  and  so  on,  has  come  to  include,  in  1920,  519.5  units 
or  1 8  per  cent  of  the  whole. 

Further  study  indicates  interesting  variations  in  these  tendencies 
in  different  groups  of  institutions. 

(8)  Both   in  1912  and  in  1920,  the  49   institutions  of   the  North 
Central   Association  of  Colleges  and   Secondary  Schools  required, 
on  the  average,  the  largest  number  of  units  for  college  entrance; 
the  28  institutions  of  the  Association  of  Urban  Universities  come 
next;    the   31    institutions   associated   with   the   College   Entrance 


Examination  Board  come  next, — all  three  representing  require- 
ments above  the  average  of  the  whole  125  institutions,  both  in  1912 
and  1920;  these  requirements  were,  respectively,  15.03,  14.01,  and 
14.79  units,  as  compared  with  an  average  of  14.74  in  1912;  and  15.07, 
15.06,  and  15.03  units,  as  compared  with  an  average  of  14.98  in  1920. 

(9)  The  31  institutions  represented  in  the  National  Association 
of  State  Universities  and  the  17  of  the  Association  of  Colleges  and 
Secondary  Schools  of  the  Southern  States  had  an  average  require- 
ment  lower  than  the  general  average  in  1912,  namely,   14.67  and 
14.38   respectively,  but  in  1920  both   had  an  average  requirement 
higher  than  the  general  average,  namely,  15.01  and   15  units,  re- 
spectively. 

(10)  The  28  institutions  represented  in  the  Association  of  Col- 
leges and  Preparatory  Schools  of  the  Middle  States  and  Maryland, 
the  21  represented  in  the  New  England   Association  of   Colleges, 
and  the  10  in  the  New  England  College  Entrance  Certificate  Board, 
required,  on  the  average,  a  number  of  units  for  entrance  smaller 
than  the  general  average,  both  in  1912  and  in  1920,  namely,  14.58, 
14.58,  and  14.28  units,  respectively,  in  1912,  and    14.92,   14.86,  and 
14.63,  respectively,  in  1920.     Both  in  1912  and  1920  the  institutions 
associated   with   the   New   England   College   Entrance    Certificate 
Board  required,  on  the  average,  the  smallest  number  of  units  for 
entrance.     This  group  alone  had,  in  1920,  a  smaller  average  require- 
ment than  the  general  average  in  1912. 

(n)  With  regard  to  prescribed  subjects  the  institutions  associ- 
ated with  the  Middle  States,  the  Entrance  Examination  Board,  and 
the  two  New  England  groups  had,  on  the  average,  larger  require- 
ments than  the  general  average,  both  in  1912  and  in  1920.  The  State 
Universities  and  the  North  Central  Association  had,  on  the  average, 
smaller  requirements  than  the  general  average,  both  in  1912  and  in 
1920.  The  Southern  Association  and  the  Urban  Universities  aver- 
aged more  than  the  general  in  1912,  but  less  in  1920. 

(12)  With  regard  to  alternate  requirements,  which  are  specified 
only  for  1920,  the  Middle  States,  Examination  Board,  Urban  Uni- 
versities, and  the  two  New  England  groups  have  larger,  the  South- 
ern, North  Central,  and  State  Universities  groups  smaller,  require- 
ments than  the  average. 

(13)  With  regard  to  electives,  the  State  and  the  North  Central 
Institutions  had  more  than  the  average,  and  the  Middle  States,  the 
Urban  Universities,  the  Examination  Board,  and  the  New  England 
Certificate  group  had  less  than  the  average,  both  in  1912  and  1920. 
The  Southern  institutions  had   less  then  the  average  in  1912,  and 
more  in  1920.     The  New  England  Association  institutions  had  more 
than  the  average  in  1912,  but  less  in  1920. 

(14)  With  regard  to  free  units,  the  Southern,  Examination  Board, 
and  the  New  England   groups  offered  nothing  in  1912,   and  their 


allowance  was  below  the  average  in  1920,  as  was  the  offering  of  the 
Middle  States  in  both  years.  The  State  Universities  were  below 
the  average  in  1912,  but  above  in  1920.  The  Urban  and  North 
Central  groups  were  above  in  both  years. 

(15)  In  studying  the  relative  frequency  of  the  various  subjects, 
some  ratio  of  evaluation  between  prescribed,  alternate,  and  elective 
units  is  necessary.     In  the  following  comparison  this  ratio  has  been 
taken  as  one,  one-fourth,  and  one-seventh,  the   average   alternate 
group  containing  four  subjects,  the  average  elective  group  seven. 

(16)  The  most  frequent  entrance  subjects,  considering  prescrip- 
tions,   alternates,    and   electives,    all    together    are    thus  English, 
Mathematics,  Latin;   the   History,  Civics,  Economics  group;    Ger- 
man, French,  Greek,  Spanish,  Physics,  Chemistry,  Business,  and 
Botany,  in  the  order  named. 

(17)  The  most  frequent  subjects  among  prescriptions  alone  are 
English,  Mathematics,  Latin,  the  History  and   Civics   group,  and 
General  Science. 

(18)  The  most  frequent  alternate  subjects  are  French  and  Ger- 
man, Latin,  Greek,  and  Spanish. 

(19)  The  most  frequent  electives  are  German,  History  and  Civics, 
French,  Latin,  Greek,  and  Mathematics. 


VI.     COLLEGE  ACCOUNTING. 

Dr.  Furst  indicated  various  sources  from  which  valuable  in- 
formation could  be  collected  on  the  subject  of  college  account- 
ing, mentioning  the  recent  report  of  Dr.  Arnett,  of  the 
General  Education  Board,  a  recent  report  of  the  Carnegie 
Foundation,  and  certain  investigations  made  by  President 
Cowling.  Other  sources  of  information  were  suggested  by 
the  members,  and  it  was  voted  to  appoint  a  committee,  with 
power  to  enlarge  its  numbers,  whose  duty  it  shall  be  to  gain 
information  on  the  whole  subject  of  college  accounting  and 
report  at  the  next  meeting.  The  committee  appointed  con- 
sists of  Dr.  Furst  and  Professor  Robinson. 


VII.     NEW  METHODS  IN  EXAMINATIONS. 

Dr.  Farrand  reported  the  present  status  of  psychological 
tests  in  college  examinations,  and  some  recent  experiments  in 
so-called  "standardized"  or  "measured"  examinations. 


10 

VIII.   THE  PROBLEM  OF  INCREASED  NUMBERS  IN  COLLEGES. 

Dean  Nicolson  spoke  of  the  problems  before  the  colleges  on 
account  of  the  increase  in  the  number  of  students,  and  men- 
tioned certain  proposed  solutions  for  the  difficulty,  pointing 
out  the  unsatisfactory  nature  of  each.  It  was  voted  to  appoint 
a  committee  to  consider  this  subject  and  report  at  the  next 
meeting.  The  committee  appointed  consists  of  Dean  Nicolson 
and  President  Ferry. 

It  was  decided  that  among  the  subjects  to  be  considered  at 
the  next  meeting  should  be  the  question  of  the  comparative 
value  of  the  certificate  system,  properly  guarded,  and  the  new 
method  of  admission  to  college  by  comprehensive  examina- 
tions. The  following  committee  was  appointed  to  prepare  a 
report  on  this  subject:  President  Guth  and  Dr.  Farrand. 

It  was  voted  to  extend  the  thanks  of  the  Committee  to  the 
Carnegie  Foundation  for  their  hospitality  in  providing  rooms 
for  the  meeting  and  luncheon  for  the  delegates. 

On  recommendation  of  the  Nominating  Committee,  con- 
sisting of  President  Guth,  Dr.  Furst,  and  Dean  Nicolson,  the 
former  officers  were  re-elected,  as  follows: 

President,  Dean  George  D.  Olds. 

Vice- President,  Headmaster  Wilson  Farrand. 

Secretary-Treasurer,    Dean  Frank  W.  Nicolson. 

The  Committee  adjourned  at  3:30  P.  M. 

FRANK  W.  NICOLSON,  Secretary. 

The  address  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Committee  is:  Dean 
Frank  W.  Nicolson,  Wesleyan  University,  Middletown,  Con- 
necticut. 


Press  of  Pel  ton  &  King,  Inc. 
Middletown,  Conn. 


48675 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


